It's why I usually refer to "fundamentalists" or "fanatics" rather than, say, "extremists" or "radicals". Rejecting the Quran's origin myth would, in a context of Islam, be "extreme". But I fully support it. Whereas I don't support the fundamentals that underpin orthodox Islam. https://twitter.com/SohSAhmed/status/1318494716745244672

Let's delve into this a bit.

You sometimes see non-Muslims (apostates or otherwise) refer to "true Islam" or "proper Islam", just as orthodox Muslims do. But I don't find that particularly useful. Besides, what's "proper Islam"? The supernatural claims Mohammed made weren't...

...true, to begin with. Established, mainstream historical scholarship is that the Quran's of human rather than extraterrestrial origin. It's no more from beyond this world than the pyramids, even if more people believe one false claim than the other. But even if we set that...

...aside, and decide "proper Islam" refers to Islam as Mohammed taught and practised it himself, this too isn't really a thing. At absolute best, we have some of Mohammed's writings and sermons in the Quran. Even then, we can't be sure someone else didn't write some or perhaps...

...all of them. And we don't know what else he may've written and preached that didn't make it into the 114 surahs that comprise the volume. We don't know for certain the context of those sermons, or the order they were delivered in. Yes, we have context stories that cropped...

...up later. And scholars have conducted linguistic analysis to determine possible composition orders. But the clear-cut notion of "this verse means X, and was revealed during Y circumstances" is a matter of legend and speculation, as later generations of Muslims tried to...

...comprehend a tome that no longer belonged to the situation or environment in which they found themselves, written by a man now long-dead. The Hadith, Sira, and Tafsir (etc.) can tell us a lot about the thinking of those post-Mohammed generations, and about the sources they...

...drew upon (e.g. some of the traditional stories about Mohammed, such as the one about the cave and the spider's web, were repurposed King David stories). But they don't give us a reliable historical picture of some comprehensive and complete "proper Islam". So, circling...

...back, there's no such thing as "true Islam" or "proper Islam". Once we accept that as our starting point, we shouldn't ever feel obliged to grant such labels to orthodoxy and fundamentalism, and deny them to pro-LGBT Muslims or any other so-called heretics. Instead, we...

...should support "heresy", and not play the game of takfiri gatekeeping fundamentalists are so fond of. Especially when that involves ditching the core orthodox beliefs which cause such harm in the world. By which I mean:

1) The Quran's the speech of Allah, an infallible deity.

2) Mohammed was a divinely-appointed role model for mankind.

All the damage fundamentalists do stem from those two core beliefs which are, in historical terms, demonstrable falsehoods -- since late antique historians have established the Quran's very human origins, and where...

...(e.g.) it draws material from known works of fiction such as the Infancy Gospels or Alexander Romance.

If people want to ditch those falsehoods but still refer to themselves as Muslims (either on its own or as "cultural Muslims" etc.), I see that as fine. In fact, it...

...would likely even hasten the destruction of the harmful beliefs in question, since people could drift into a more casual Muslim identity rather than having to self-describe as apostates. Weakening the links between belief, practice, and identity is a good thing. And there...

...are plenty of examples of that being done quite successfully. There are atheist and agnostic Jews who observe shabbat and treat it as a digital detox, for example. There are Christians (certainly in Britain) who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus but still embrace...

...Christmas traditions and the like. The notion that belief in supernatural claims is a necessary element of religion is often taken as too much of a given these days, despite there being so many examples both modern and ancient of why that doesn't have to be the case. And...

...once we accept that, once Muslims take the steps that're already common in other religions, that means the harmful ideologies and obligations can end up on the scrapheap, and people can pick or choose things on their own merits, in terms of both philosophies and practices.

For example, the historical Mohammed was (insofar as we can reconstruct him) not a great guy. For that matter, a lot of the legends depict him saying and doing terrible things as well. And in cases where a Muslim believes Mohammed was a divinely-appointed exemplar, that's a...

...serious problem, since those deeds (historical or legendary) inform present-day philosophies, actions, and even laws. But once that core falsehood goes out the window, the door's wide open for a Muslim to say, "This story's horrible. But this other one, about Mohammed and...

...the woman who dumped rubbish on his head? That's worth thinking about." Just as someone can take elements of their philosophy from bits of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations without feeling obliged to emulate the man in all ways, or learn lessons from myths and fables without...

...having to sacrifice a bull to Zeus etc.

This ran a bit longer than I intended. So, summary: Trash false beliefs (Islamic orthodoxy / fundamentalism); don't regard them as necessary or inevitable parts of an identity; decouple belief and practice; support beneficial "heresy".